The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

It Does Not Take a Conspiracy

At some point ignorance must betray the lie which exploits it. Mass delusions are a natural outcome of a specific recipe of commonplace cultural norms. All that is required to deploy a large scale deception, is a critical mass of ignorance and chronic angst, ignited by small repetitive prodding sourced from a position of authority. One does not have to conspire – rather only understand the malleable nature of social duress.

In order to create an exothermic nuclear decay acceleration from gamma rays, fission materials, and fast and thermal neutrons, one requires several physical components to effect such a reaction. Nuclear fuel along with a reactor core, neutron moderator, neutron poison (absorber), steady source of ignition neutrons, coolant, control rods and a reactor pressure vessel.1 Save for the mitigating features of a coolant, neutron poison, control rods and a neutron moderator – the process which foments the real social vulnerability which social skeptics falsely spin as ‘conspiracy theory’, is a natural outcome stemming from exploitation of several commonplace and naturally occurring social norms. It does not take a conspiracy after all, rather merely a pinch of chronically induced social anxiety, along with some gentle prodding in the right places, and in the right direction.

In 1990 a company called LA Gear introduced a footwear line into the high school aged buyer demographic, featuring a light emitting diode which flashed each time that the footwear user stepped on the ground. Called ‘LA Gear Lights’, these sneakers propelled this little known company to over $1 billion in sales revenue in just two short years of product maturation. Every high school socialite in California, and then the broader US demographic, desired these symbols of approved conformity.2 In similar fashion (pardon the pun), Kevin Planck at Under Armour was able to build a powerhouse brand through exploiting the tribal psychology example of college and professional athletes, upon a population thirsting for social acceptance. A momentum of such magnitude that it challenged and surmounted the pinnacle of brand strength (apologies to Coca-Cola) in the consumer goods industry, Nike. Kevin had listened to a small consumer goods advisory firm who taught that value in product strengthened brand and pricing better than did a roll of the dice on style, and creation of a margin-resilient value chain was paramount over mere purchase and operating cost minimization. Under Armour’s apparel cost them more to produce, message and deliver than did Nike’s, but they were also able to value their items at a higher price point than did Nike. They had solved a problem of tribal duress.3

Fashion science as it turns out is a very informative field of study, eliciting principles which are very useful to those seeking to exploit its elements to direct and control thought.

The essence of human interaction called a fad – elicits a principal with regard to social vulnerability, which bears dynamics similar to that of an unconstrained atomic pile (reactor core). In both of the case studies cited above, the momentum of personal statement and tribal example, was a neutron ignition source into a pile of compressed and anxious young adults (the fuel), exploiting the kinetic energy of their desire to be accepted. Starlings in group flight do not have to exhibit a specific pattern desired, all they have to do is not exhibit the pattern which is forbidden. And in order to reduce their likelihood of exhibiting the embargoed hypothesis – all we have to do is keep them under constant angst. Even an image bearing truth can be quickly dissipated through chaos and duress.

This social vulnerability does not simply end at age 25 of course. It continues to ferment and mature into less obvious forms of control-ability and fanaticism, in the average adult member of society. Nazi Germany did not proliferate its message simply through means of the concerted effort of broadscale conspiracy, rather an exploiting of the common social norms fermenting in the aftermath of World War I. Germans struggled to understand their country’s uncertain future. Citizens faced poor economic conditions, skyrocketing unemployment, political instability, and profound social change. While downplaying more extreme goals, Adolf Hitler and just a few individuals inside the Nazi Party offered simple solutions to Germany’s problems, exploiting people’s fears and frustrations.4 There existed a common nutrient solution of duress upon the general population (see The Ten Pillars of Social Skepticism). A study published in June of 2017, elicits and supports this notion that populations under duress are vulnerable to being exploited by control-minded influences. Highlighting that even our official authorized stories themselves, may yet be the result of this vulnerability, moreso than either an enormous effort of influencing or a prevailing realization of the truth inside a matter.

Evidence suggests that the aversive feelings that people experience when in crisis—fear, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of control—stimulate a motivation to make sense of the situation, increasing the likelihood of perceiving conspiracies in social situations. We then explain that after being formed, conspiracy theories can become historical narratives that may spread through cultural transmission. We conclude that conspiracy theories originate particularly in crisis situations and may form the basis for how people subsequently remember and mentally represent a historical event.

~ Van Prooijen, Douglas; Sage – Memory Studies : “Conspiracy theories as part of history”5

Establishing Isolation and Chronic Duress is All that is Required

There is safety in the herd. One does not have to conspire – rather only understand the malleable nature of social duress and establish separations between people. The public does not only invent creative alternatives under chronic applications of such duress, but they are vulnerable to adopting an official version more easily as well. This as much as anything, may be the reason behind why all our news is negatively charged. It allows for control. Conspiracy theory accusation therefore, goes both ways. Both the dissenting minority and the conforming majority are vulnerable, and a conspiracy is not required at all.

  • fear of outsiders,
  • desire to regain power,
  • habit/history of religious-styled fervor,
  • emotional damage from traumatic past events,
  • overcompensation for secret doubts,
  • fear of the new and unknown,
  • cultural addiction to confrontation & denial,
  • emotional rush derived from control and deception,
  • cathartic joy of belittling those who are different and
  • the need to belong.

In this combination of factors, an interesting troop dynamic occurs in which humans naturally seek to reinforce, protect and promote a dogmatic message; and they will do so without much prodding. This combination of social factors causes a proliferation of dogmatic ignorance and compliance, which is similar in nature to an exothermic nuclear reaction. A principle called exoagnoia:


/philosophy : rhetoric : exploitation : fad : ignorance/ : conspiracy which is generated naturally through the accelerative interaction of several commonplace social factors. A critical mass of uninformed, misinformed, disinformed and/or compartmentalized population under chronic duress (the ignorance fuel), ignited by an input of repetitive authoritative propaganda (the ignition source). Such a phenomenon enacts falsehood through its own inertia/dynamic and does not necessarily require a continuous intervention on the part of an influencing group.

Critical Elements of a ‘Conspiracy’ (Fad)

  • a compressed and interactive population
  • a conformance compelling and persistent angst (the duress)
  • identification of the unacceptable (bad)
  • compartmentalized organizations who apparatchiks do not fully understand the big picture
  • introduction of an easily observable ‘acceptability’ influence from a tribe or very small sliver of the population
  • social celebrity backing and praise for the influence
  • media sources who will craft ingoratio elenchi, ingens vanitatum and verum mendacium filled publications (see The Art of the Professional Lie)
  • silence about or disincentive towards considering any alternatives

There exist two flavors of this mechanism:

  1. Popular confirmation (promotion of the preferred idea)
  2. Popular inverse negation (condemnation of the full set of unsanctioned ideas)

That is all it takes folks. As it turns out, it does not take a conspiracy after all, rather merely a gentle prodding in the right places, and in the right direction, at the right time.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post =>
The Ethical Skeptic, “It Does Not Take a Conspiracy” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 30 March 2018, Web;

March 30, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates | , | Leave a comment

Vaccinials – The Betrayed Generation of Americans

We have created a new generation of Systemically Injured Kids (SIK): those born since 1994. 17 of 66 kids in a recent basketball tournament I attended, bore some variant of readily observable brain injury based disability. This was a random single observation and anecdote of course. But it is also science, and a part of the growing base of intelligence being assembled by the real scientists on this issue, parents.  Our clarion alarm grows louder with each month and with each new concurring study. Yes vaccines are preventing disease, but at what cost? We have not even asked this question as a society. We just closed our eyes, plugged our ears and hoped for the best.
This ethical argument for safer vaccines & vaccine schedules has begun to turn the tide of discussion. And the power wielding/virtue signalling social skeptics who enforce conclusions around this argument, are losing on their very own claimed home turf: Science.

Over my career I have sought out and solved a number of business, social and scientific problems of varying sizes.  Some of those problem resolutions bear far reaching impacts which affect the lives of every single person reading this article. Ninety-nine percent however, simply served to benefit the client or nation which was directly involved.  The point being, that my skill set includes development of intelligence based data collection frameworks, and how to apply those frameworks to creatively resolve problems and solve mysteries. I have been witness to copious amounts of the worst of human behavior, and am familiar with how it disguises itself with misinformation and counter-intelligence; spun by the poseurs who conceal such activity (one of the reasons for beginning this search called ethical skepticism).

So, attending a recreational basketball tournament at our local rec center yesterday, I laid aside of course my normal habits, in order to simply enjoy a Saturday morning, and have some fun with my basketball loving son.  He, like me in high school, was not skilled enough to make his high school basketball squad – despite hours of practice, years of junior and rec league ball and a sincere love of the sport.  James Naismith should receive sainthood, for inventing what amounts to be – the acme of sports ever devised, basketball. A vigorous workout, fairly low on injury incidence, playable indoor our outdoors, exciting, high scoring, requiring a solid understanding of defense, offense and most importantly, team play.  The perfect sport.

But you see, my son’s situation differs from my high school experience in that he was injured through a 6 week long and tortuous reaction to the DTaP (statistically, most likely the Pertussis component) vaccine at age 6 months. Our bright-eyed little wonder who looked me in the eye each day and smiled at my various facial expressions – never looked me in the eye again after that fateful first day of the ‘reaction’. We bore not the first clue of what this was and trusted our doctor’s urging that this reaction would pass and things would be fine. We entered the injury into a useless database filled with millions upon millions of varying magnitude but similar reports by parents in the US. However, the full impact of this set of events did not show up until age 5, when my son’s K-5 teacher raised the warning flag that there were problems.  It was not until age 8 that we finally got a medical plan to acknowledge and cover special needs therapy for his encephalopathy (remember this for later when we evaluate the current ‘science’ on the subject). Now at age 17, despite more than a decade of therapy and special schooling, he struggles to tie his shoes, count change and tell the time.

Ours was not the first instance where social skeptic dogma has left physicians and parents ignorant, becoming the genesis of extensive amounts of suffering and harm; and it will not be the last. As do most Encephalopathy/ASD parents, we have learned that we face opposition in the form of cocooned arrogance, obfuscation, lying and virtue signalling. As a society, we wallow in the cultivated ignorance enveloping this issue. Failing to even acknowledge this generation of kids, the gravitas and cost of life impact they have suffered, nor the pain of the victims involved.1 But if this was just a matter of a shortfall or failure to act, that would be one thing (and they would be the ‘Forgotten Generation’ in that case). Instead, this is an act of betrayal wherein, malevolent parties seek to make and enforce final scientific claims on behalf of us all, derived strictly from absences of data (appeal to ignorance).

“I was not prepared for the vitriol, largely anonymous, which accompanied our publication [suggesting a link between human exposure to aluminium and the aetiology of autism]. I have been elucidating upon the potential dangers of the aluminium age for 34 years now but I have never before had my life threatened openly. I can only assume that our research has weighed very heavily on the toes of those who will not counter the possibility that not all vaccines are 100% safe.”

~ Dr. Chris Exley, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry, Group Leader – Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory at Keele University2

The good news is, that my son picked the right home and family. He is my champion, my light and my example of courage, humility and persistence. I cherish, love and support my son through his struggles – every single day of my life. He never demands, he never complains, he always smiles, he always loves. He does not even know how to lie. He is my buddy, a happy loving little guy (not so little now) – who responds every single time that I ask of him, “Yeah, I am happy Dad.” The innocent, carried away from the flood-spewing Dragon upon the wings of an Eagle, to a Place prepared beforehand.

The Null Hypothesis: A Vaccine Reaction is a Cerebral Injury of Unknown Magnitude

However, while watching the games play this weekend, unfortunately my habits of observation began to kick in again. I was not a coach, of course. God forbid that I ever be a coach at anything other than specific forms of business problem solving. I did manage to wrestle, run cross country and make swim team in my younger years. Skills which proved useful during my years as a Naval Intelligence Officer. But I never totally caught the team sport edge which is necessary in coaching basketball or football. This is not to say that I am not a ‘team player’ – aside from a skill in spotting those who abuse unity as a lever for personal gain or in resolving some childhood trauma (There is no ‘I’ in team, but there is often a hidden ‘me’).  I appreciate and support those selfless parents who possess such skills and offer them in service to all our kids – as we all did yesterday in the recreation league tournament. But I am an observer, a question reduction, critical path specialist and problem solver. Favoring information for its ability to establish plurality, its probative potential; seldom possessing an aversion to anecdote, when in its proper role.

System disruptions, such as immune and brain system injuries, are not confined to one discrete sliver of the population as the NVICS or CDC statistics might imply – rather they are distributed over a diminishing arrival wave function (see right hand image in graphic above) across virtually all persons who possess such an exposure (virtually all of our children). There is no such thing as a ‘no effect’ in the human brain.3

A vaccine is a potentially permanent systemic alteration… a large footprint, potentially premature system activation and brain barrier tampering involving plurifinality – including brain injury.4 5 It does not simply perform the primary task intended – and is not the same thing as a cure, nor antidote. We must cease viewing these treatments in such naive and simpleton-science 1880’s understanding. Yes they bear benefit, but they also tamper with and involve, immune systems and cerebral impacts which we do not yet fully understand.  Systems which are now coincidentally failing, in over-vaccinated American children and adults in particular, at epidemic rates.

Human Immune Systems are subject to Negentropy and dysfunction, without warning or clear indication of cause. Our inability to spot the cause of related symptoms, does not therefore mean that a cause does not exist. This is an implicit argument from ignorance – the heart and soul of today’s vaccine and autoimmune science.

Precaution, premises, logical calculus, multiple confirmed mechanisms, aetiology, epidemiology data, evidence of expression, enormity of risk, and public will – ALL exist such that they collectively support now, this

Null Hypothesis:   A Vaccine Reaction is a cerebral and immune system disruption of unknown magnitude and persistence.

Until we have much better science, we cannot continue to abide by the idea that non-probative ‘absence of observations’, inferred from arm’s-length healthcare plan data on pre-5 year olds – equals an adequate basis for a positive scientific claim. Such work nowhere near represents competent or plenary science. Instead, we must weigh the dangers of not using a vaccine, against the real and present danger of using it. One should never be used as a matter of social convenience. We must place a value chain quantity on this risk (of creating populations A’, B’ and C’ in the graphic toward the end of this article) and weigh it against the benefit received from a 46 event childhood vaccine schedule (as compared to say, a 9 event one). This is how sound science decision making is done in a free nation and inside the public trust.

Nonetheless, during my son’s recent basketball competition, this urge broached to take a sample count of player profiles. There of course was no way to skeptically deflect this idea – an habitual precaution I suppose; something integral to my nature. In observing all the players by profile/type/skill, I noted that of 66 kids who participated in the tournament, 17 of them bore some obvious (and I mean no doubt at all) disability related to cerebral injury. The gait, the stride, the imbalance, lack of coordination and core-to-extremities hypotonia. The habitually contracted, rather than fluid relaxed joint dispositions, the mid-line crossing issues, the hand to eye dysfunction, the struggle to break from dribble focus to teammate or basket. The facial/maxillary structural development issues, neck posture and focal/awareness struggles. All the things which the specialists have shown us over the last 13 years of this daily PhD program. The difference being, that I am a trained professional observer. The players bore disability to such extent that, as an employer I would suspect that they might struggle to perform most complex job offerings. This was not a special needs recreation league mind you, rather just a normal community basketball league – albeit by rule, one which only allows a kid to play if they have not been tagged for one of the local high school varsity teams. However, in statistical counterbalance, this count excluded severe autism and encephalopathy, Guillain-Barré, Down Syndrome, mitochondrial disease and kids with severe Cerebral Palsy (who did not play but some of whom were present in the audience).

17 of 66 kids – 26% of the kids in a normal random recreation league tournament – bearing various forms and magnitude of obvious early childhood brain injury

What a fool believes he sees, the wise man has the power to reason away.

My Fear is This:  That the systemic injury curve above, not only is unacknowledged, but as well may not taper off as forgivingly as I have depicted either. The damage we are doing to our children may not show up until such time as we are compelled to ignore it or accept it as simply generational or personal eccentricity.

These kids were not goofy. We had plenty of goofy kids back in my elementary school days. Heck, I was one of them. By 17 I had grown out of that ilk of issues. This was problematically more than just being a bit young and uncoordinated. This was injury – these kids were struggling into adulthood. Back in my days of elementary school, our special needs class (combined in a classroom with other kids and including ‘stay at home’ kids in our small community – and including Down Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy) was 3 of 128 – or 2.3%. In fact, if we exclude CP and DS, this was 1 kid in reality, who bore this similar type of brain injury. Less than 1%.

“There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety… No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge. I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation.”

~ Dr Bernadine Healy, MD (Former Director, National Institute of Health and Former President, American Red Cross)

The plural of anecdote as it turns out, is data after all. And ‘The Scientists’, are not the casual health bureaucracy PhD statisticians; but instead, are those who are in the field daily, as professional observers and intervention specialists, i.e. parents. Something is wrong folks, something is seriously, seriously wrong. This, if representative even in the least, bears inference to damage and lifelong disability to millions of kids, …as opposed to an unremarkable outbreak of chickenpox.

If you are conducting policy-research epidemiology on kids’ permanent injury, and you ignore the input of parents or diagnoses after age 5 – you are a fake skeptic and therefore, are faking science.

Plurality has been dramatically surpassed. This argument is real. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the plight of vaccine vulnerable Americans. We cannot continue to spin our risk unknown as merely personal eccentricities on the part of our kids.

As a parent, I have this irresistible suspicion that I am nowhere near alone in having a vaccine injured child who is not acknowledged by those who make the scientific claim that they have ‘measured the cost’. We and our children bear the hidden cost that they never will acknowledge.

Vaccinials: The Betrayed Generation

When Virtue-Shielded Systems Fail – Those Who Operate them Fail to Observe That Failure

Several NASA and SpaceX engineer buddies have an expression about large scale explosions and other disasters with respect to rocket launch, control and landing: they call it ‘Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly’. This a humorous play on the acronyms regarding systems function, performance and diagnostics (identified in ISO 26262 and other presiding standards). The key point being, that even in systems theory, where we possess highly understood, modeled and controlled dynamic factors – disasters routinely occur.  With immunizations (both natural and artificial), this becomes even more pronounced a potential, because we do not fully grasp all the contributing elements, impacting factors, arrival distributions, interleaving effects, side effects, cross-system impacts, barrier exceptions, nor functions (primary and secondary), nor even presence of – all the systemic factors involved inside human adaptive and innate immunity to pathogens. We hold no science for FMEDA, Failure Mode Effects and Diagnostic Analysis for instance. Of course the retort that ‘We do not bear the detailed knowledge of body systems in order to adhere to such industry practices’ only serves to reinforce my point here.  We do not know fully what we are doing with respect to vaccines. We do not even know, what we do not even know. We inject rats, monkeys and people, and celebrate the benefits; then dismiss and ignore any mention of potential negative effects (save for the 0.01% most profound ones). Much akin to a religion.

We believe so much in the innate goodness and righteousness of the program, that we become immune to science itself.

Five clear, replicable, and related discoveries explaining how autism is triggered have formed an undeniably clear picture of autism’s causation, and possibly ways to alleviate the symptoms, too. Most of the research that has created this understanding has been published in the last 36 months, and largely from international scientists in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Israel, and China. The American media, public health authorities, and Autism Speaks? Silent. ~J.B. Handley, Autism Blogger6

As you may be able to observe in the graph I assembled above, the growth in vaccine events post 1994 (the orange line, indexed off the 2nd Y-axis), immediately preceded a similar dynamic in the observed incidence rates of new ASD cases (the blue line, indexed off the first Y-axis), by a timeframe of about 5 years. If I were to choose a cause-suggestive interval on this matter – it would be 5 to 7 years, because of the dynamics surrounding how and when cause-to-effect is observed. Please note the above graph is not a ‘correlation’ – and don’t let pretend skeptics try to tell you that it is. The fingerprint data represent much more than a simple Pearson’s PPMCC correlation. As well, one might see that in this latest 2014-2016 CDC study released in November 2017, ASD incidence continues nicely along the 42x² gentle acceleration curve which ASD incidence has followed since 1994. All of this bucking and refuting the discrete jumps which should have been seen, were these increases merely a factor of change in diagnosis protocols (all marked at the bottom of the graph by year of introduction). In 2002, there might have existed an argument that the protocols of DSM-IV could have precipitated a jump in diagnoses – but any supposition of this nature in 2017, has evaporated into wishful thinking. Graph data sources: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

This is the danger of fake skepticism folks – obfuscating an issue of precaution during a critical inflection point (see point ‘Indigo‘ on the chart above), and thereby allowing the danger to conflagrate into a national disaster. We should have declared a hiatus in vaccine schedule ramp ups, in favor of a period of observation beginning in 1999. Instead, we did the opposite – adding more vaccine events and reducing the overall monitoring of ASD incidence inside the population.

We justified all this based upon a single study which was conducted in a low-event vaccine country, against only 1 vaccine event (MMR), on children pre 5 years old, and which ended in 1998 before any of this ramp up in vaccine events occurred at all. The US, in taking the lead on vaccine event proliferation, should have ethically crafted the science around this, and with their own 2 to 15 year old kids, not Danish pre-5 year olds. This is a malevolent level of accountability avoidance, bait and switch science.

There is no one-liner, no virtue signalling, no industry propaganda which can ever excuse this set of ignorance enhancing actions during the 1999 – 2014 time frame.

This is all inductive inference aetiology and not tantamount to final proof just yet, of course. But in contrast, the idea that there is not a concern, is not science at all. To ignore this issue, borders on criminal and malevolent negligence. Study after study continues to arrive linking either immune system activation or vaccine adjuvants themselves, with autism. The problem has grown lock step commensurate with the incidence, complexity, frequency and increase of vaccine events. We cannot continue our current one-liner driven head-in-the-sand science any longer. The evidence is pouring in, week by week – only held back by the ignorance of those preaching 25 year old preliminary statistical (not direct testing) science. This January we heralded a new series of studies showing that early and frequent immune activation causes autism in mice (see lambda (λ) in the probability distribution graph later in this blog article). This from McLean Hospital neuroscientists is exemplary:

“A growing body of evidence suggests that immune system activation, such as that caused by bacterial and viral infections, can play important roles in many brain disorders,” explained William Carlezon, PhD, chief of the Division of Basic Neuroscience at McLean Hospital, and senior author of the paper. “While previous research in laboratory animals has established that immune activation during critical prenatal (before birth) developmental periods can later produce the core features of ASD, including decreased social interaction, aberrant communication, and increased repetitive behavior, we wanted to evaluate whether postnatal (during infancy) immune activation could also produce other symptom clusters that are often seen in ASD and related conditions.”17

“In this pilot study, infant macaques receiving the recommended pediatric vaccine regimen from the 1990’s displayed a different pattern of maturational changes in amygdala volume and differences in amygdala-binding of [11C]DPN following the MMR/DTaP/Hib vaccinations between T1 and T2 compared with non-exposed animals. There was also evidence of greater total brain volume in the exposed group prior to these vaccinations suggesting a possible effect of previous vaccinations to which these animals had been exposed. Because primate testing is an important aspect of pre-clinical vaccine safety assessment prior to approval for human use (Kennedy et al. 1997), the results of this pilot study warrant additional research into the potential impact of an interaction between the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines on brain structure and function. Additional studies are underway in the primate model to investigate the mechanistic basis for this apparent interaction.”18

Mechanism has clearly been established, which is the key component of what differentiates a mere idea, from a testable hypothesis. Even more compelling, is the fact that this is an acceleration folks – not a dampening of, nor steady growth, nor discrete change due to diagnostics and protocols. It is a significant issue, and the sponsors have done their job. Now it is time for fake skeptics to step out of the way and let science do its job.

And as it regards mundane communicable illnesses, and in the face of compelling evidence of injury to an entire generation of kids – this is not science, this is not ethics, this is not humanity. Not in the least.

The red herring of ‘It’s all just an increase in diagnosis’, is debunked. Ghosts, UFO’s and Bigfoot do not harm us at all. Ignorance does. If one was a true skeptic, one would be all over this issue – and not touting conformist propaganda and weak probative value studies.†

Why is the 2015 Jain-Marshall Study of weak probative value? Because it took third party, unqualified (health care plan) sample interpretations of absences (these are not observations – they are ‘lack-of’ observations – which are not probative data to an intelligence specialist – nor to a scientist – see pseudo-theory) from vaccinated and non-vaccinated children’s final medical diagnoses at ages 2, 3, and 5. A similar data vulnerability to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation System’s ‘self-volunteering’ of information and limitation of detection to within 3 years. This fails to catch 99% of signal observations, and there is good demonstrable record of that failure to detect actual injury circumstances.19 My son’s symptoms were not diagnosed as encephalitic by medical professionals to, nor especially accepted/recorded by a medical plan until he was 7 years old – and his case involves a moderate to high disability. We would have not even counted as ASD/Encephalopathy were we included inside the Jain-Marshall study – and 97% of ASD and encephalopathy cases are not as severe as is my son’s! Most ASD parents understand why this method of approach is without any merit whatsoever. ASD parents are already well versed in this gaming of statistics.

Plus, had they followed the scientific method, it would have dictated a cohort study on the Pertussis vaccine first. A pronounced effect – more likely to be categorized by age 5 by a medical plan, large challenging database, a contrast with older studies and enormous informative potential, convincing in broadening the footprint of the sampled horizon, clear and lengthy subject and object administration history – larger pool of non-vaccinated members, etc. They meticulously avoided this avenue of research because of the risk to their careers. Instead opting to pursuing age-limit methodologies and sampling channels which had proved successful in suppressing p-value signals in previous MMR-autism studies. When you craft a study methodology based upon your precedented likelihood of obtaining a non-controversial result – this is pseudoscience. Profit fueling, and celebrity endowing pseudoscience. ASD parents are keenly familiar with this analytical game as well.

Moreover, the lead author is a practicing pediatrician, and NOT a research professional. She is only cursorily trained in hypothesis reduction, statistics and testing theory. One or two courses at best. People who are degreed in hypothesis testing, systems modeling and scientific statistical reduction take up to eleven such courses (what I took). As a result, the authors missed the implications surrounding its indicated vaccine-autism-CURATIVE effect which emerged from the data; in that those who were vaccinated, showed as actually having been prevented from getting autism or were cured of it. Holy – hide this or be censured – Batman! This is called an inversion effect, and is indicative of data tampering and target screening/exclusion bias. The principle involves an unintended alteration of a part of a study’s comprehensive results, in reaction to its screening out of disliked profiles from a subset or input set analysis. Because we filtered out the cases where vaccines might have caused autism, or the system missed them because of bureaucracy, time frame limits or recording failures, inside subset data groups – when those data are added into the overall mix, it imbues an apparent curative effect on the part of the variable now favored in subset data (vaccination). An input bias which was necessary in balancing the overall average into a statistically neutral, and career-preserving, range. But an input bias which betrays its culprit at the same time. A fingerprint. Had this study shown indeed, a significant link between autism and the vaccine schedule – publication would not have been the next step. Rather, followup by means of question methodology to determine what went wrong in the data.

Collectively, this type of pseudoscience is known as The Lyin’tific Method; which is contrasted with real science here: The Scientific Method vs. The Lyin’tific Method.

When one filters out autism-vaccine linkages in the data (see the gamma (γ) band or C’ group of injuries in the below graphic), one imbues into the data an effect which indicates that autism is therefore more highly associated with the non-vaccination population. Therefore, an impossible (and ominous) contraposition arises in the results –> vaccines prevent (or cure, if you adhere to the genetic origin construct) autism. This is no different than finding an empty bank vault with tons of fingerprints all over its open door. Just harder to envision on the part of the general public.

A lab quality specialist uses inversion effect observations like which emerged in the Jain-Marshall study, to detect when data might have been accidentally skewed inside a study. The reality: This study would not pass a test of real scientific merit – and is nigh unto fraud, to a knowledgeable parent, and especially to a knowledgeable systems statistician. It only fits a social narrative and only serves to convince the gullible. And please do not insult ASD parents by attempting to foist the fairy-tale that ‘There is no reason for scientists to seek only conforming results. Scientists would have been excited to get such groundbreaking results. They would have been all over this.’ Stop, just please don’t even…  just stop.

Provided we understand at-risk genetics, I concur with the need to undertake the risk and vaccinate our population of kids for the Big Four (Red Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Polio) – all death/debilitation-bearing and highly communicable childhood diseases against which I have recommended or supported vaccines as a part of national strategies on health. So I am not ‘Anti-Vaxx’ as a hired malicious propaganda artist might be tempted to spout. But these interventions comprise only 7 of the vaccination events under the current CDC recommended schedule. Despite social skeptic screaming to try and squelch this cohort data, the simple fact remains, the Amish vaccinate less (3 versus 43 events) than does the general population – and (as a result?) exhibit about a 1/7th rate of autism (1 in 271 versus 1 in 38) versus the general population. The argument (hypothesis) for a dramatically reduced vaccine event schedule has surpassed Ockham’s Razor by far.

Dogmatic Faith:

1. Make a scientific claim as to a cost-benefit mechanism as your decision basis.

2. Fail to define, measure or ever even be aware of the cost.

Nor have we sought out safer alternative modes, timings, forms and adjuvants; save for a partial elimination of thimerosal from the schedule – due to enormous pressure from ASD parents and scientists. Despite the wealth of study citing the child impacting damage of this adjuvant alone, we constantly hear the pablum from social skeptics about how the amount of mercury is minuscule and in the wrong form to do any harm. Yet it did, and it does still. Our propaganda has blinded us to sound science decision making as a society. We do not bear a need, nor have we studied the risk entailed inside a 46 event childhood vaccination schedule.20 This is a failure to recognize systemic failure, blinded inside a virtue-shielded system. This is the same principle (called anosognosia) by which a religion fails to observe its own negative facets or deleterious impacts.

My Construct on What is Happening (Pre-Hypothesis): The Post-Columbine Generation

Observation  –>  Intelligence  –>  Necessity  –>  Hypothesis Development   –   Why These are the Critical Start of the Scientific Method

What follows is indeed a construct – a pre hypothesis. This is the process of science which social skeptics detest – because it is a process that introduces ideas which threaten their clients or religious beliefs. Below, one might discern the process by which social skeptics obfuscate vaccine science through eliminating the observation-intelligence-necessity steps of the scientific method. The two Poisson arrival distribution curve graphic below, is what is known as Intelligence (in business, science and the military – of which I have done intelligence work in all three). Intelligence is the analytical and strategic process by which one assigns a viewing framework, and testing critical path standard surrounding a question of the unknown. What is the nature of this issue and what questions do we ask next? It is where we derive necessity, hypothesis and the series of critical path questions which drive science itself. Intelligence seeks out pathways to increase the reliability of probative observations, and does not presume that our premature and current ‘reliable’ information is anywhere near probative (see Anecdote – The Cry of the Pseudo-Skeptic). Iraqi weapons of mass destruction claims, were an instance where intelligence professionals used ‘reliable’ information channels and attempted to make them probative. Intelligence is a process bearing enormous threat to someone looking to make sure science never produces an embargoed answer.

By the trick of avoiding these steps, and through means of this anosognosiac virtue-shielded obsession; this inability to observe and understand/detect systemic failures and search for their cause, all of us face the stark possibility that we have created a new generation of Systemically Injured Kids (SIK). These kids are outlined in the λ=2.2 Poisson Distribution (a fitting parametization of this type of effect) below. The graph compares the profundity of brain/immune injury on the x-axis, to the probability that one has of contracting that profundity (P(ρ)) on the y-axis. The black curve represents a lower risk or even natural immune system activation injury curve (7 or less events), while the orange curve represents a 120% theoretical premature activated injury distribution (a 46 event aggressive vaccine schedule). The injured class of kids are the displaced groups A’, B’ and C’ (formerly A, B and C) in the 2.2 (120%) lambda (λ) immune activation curve in orange below. Those born after the late 80’s rush to increase pharmaceutical revenues in such a way as to wow Wall Street into coughing up some of the bubble money rushing through that period of equity market economics. We rushed headlong into new profitable vaccines and abandoned all precaution after 1990. These victims are forming into a new and measurable, separate generation/component: The Betrayed Generation – Vaccinials. As I have conjectured, but with sound basis, in the graph below – the old A + B group of healthy children have shifted to the new immune/brain impacted groups A’ + B’. Most all of these are not detectable cases by age 5, however like my son’s case, are detectable by age 15 when observed by an aware or not even aware (as in our case) parent or physician.

The beta (β) band group of kids below (or B’ injury group) are the ones we could count as injuries, but because of political reasons we have chosen instead to abandon these kids and their parents. My son resides in this group. All of the kids I counted in the 17 of 66 above, reside in this group as well.

The alpha (α) band group of kids below (or A’ injury group) are the ones we cannot now detect as being injured/impacted. However, they are in fact impacted as well. They will compose our new, poorly understood despair class of kids. We will sit around scratching our heads, wondering what the hell happened to this generational group.

I am sure that groups A’ and B’ exist, I am just not sure how large they are. Ominously, neither are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Health – and this is their job, to know this.

And by the way, a most recent case is exemplary of the standard employed to define the boundary of C’ VICS Compensation group (subset of the γ band below) – a very tight delineation criteria – tetraplegic encephalitis. And that only after 5 years of hard fought litigation. If you regard this service threshold as your delineation of the ‘risk’ versus the reward of vaccines, you are nothing short of a complete idiot.

What the graph below shows is that we fail to recognize this brain-immune vaccine injury (systemic failure) for three reasons:

1. We lack and have blocked by social activists, the necessity to drive forward research on the matter, leaving us bereft of expertise in detecting injuries (α band)

2. We practice large Simpson Effect/Hempel’s Paradox vulnerable studies which screen out 97% of actual injury cases through data collection methodologies (β band)

3. Even as it regards actual recorded injury cases, we develop exclusion criteria which eliminate any p-value signal (produces a curative inversion effect) (γ band).

This is how the game is played folks.

The C’ class of the severely injured in the graph below, constitute merely a political football. Generally there are two constituents of this class: 1. Those of profound injury right off the bat, and of whom a small minority are awarded compensation – which itself is a vast minority of total injury cases (Less than .03%).21 This so that we can put on the masquerade of addressing vaccine injuries as a society. And 2. Those not NVICS compensated, but which can be detected, and are reported, and are accepted as classified by medical plans inside the vaccine injury group by age 5.  Again a very small sliver of the A’ + B’ + C’ injured class is ever actually acknowledged by society as being injured – enough to find a couple clever exclusion criteria tricks in order to screen out of a study.  C’ – 2, 3, and 5 year old medical plan data is easy enough to screen out, but it will always produce an inversion effect when this approach is used.

What you see below is intelligence – a structure inside which probative insights/questions are brought to greater and greater levels of reliability. This is how scientific discoveries are made. It is not that the paradigms outlined below are abjectly right – they simply reside along a critical path which demands that they be objectively addressed with follow-up study first. This is how scientific reduction is done.

Today’s institutions hang out on the right side of the graph only and meticulously avoid any probative research (middle and left side of the graph) – because of the danger of discovering something which is socially feared by power and profit makers. Completely useless authorized numbers, 2% informative, crafted inductively into an appeal to ignorance lie.

Our Responsibility as Science is to Know what A’ and B’ Are – Not Simply C’

What will be the net effect of this? What follows continues my speculation concerning the A’ + B’ group above, granted. But this as well is not unsound projection, rather a real danger. This class of quirky to odd, mild autism, social/risk introvert class could comprise as much as 40% of our population of kids inside The Vaccinial Generation. I also fear that we are already observing this reality in our kids today. Increasingly incompetent at handling the demanding nature of our society, through no fault of their own in its genesis, our Vaccinials will fail to follow previous generations into complex scientific, mathematical and research based work.  Calls for social programs will increase, drug dependency will continue to rise and the burgeoning ranks of the despair class will continue to grow.  In a previous study, we outlined that it will take the creation of 8,000 care centers in the 2060 US, just to care for our fully acknowledged Level III and severe cases of cerebral injury generated through 2016.22 Not to mention the $ billions spent each year to care for our injured children – a cost which is patriotically absorbed by our shrinking class of responsible American parents. None of this bodes well for our nation at all. This is simply a process of genocide through proxy:.

The Post-Columbine Generation (Vaccinials) is under stress and mental duress – expressions called ‘autism’ which are altering the resilience and ability of our kids to deal with life stress. The argument is there folks. Don’t pretend like it isn’t.  It is a hypothesis, with mechanism, test-ability, incremental development capability and compelling intelligence to support it.23

The Risk We Ignore: 15 – 30 Million American Citizens – An Entire Latent Brain/Immune Injury Generation (A’ + B’ + C’)

  • regarded as odd and directionless by older generations (real, not simply age perception)
  • socially reserved or withdrawn
  • fascinated or fixated on weapons or symbols of personal power
  • violent or prone to depression related hatred of peers

“When your brain is not fully developed, you don’t know how to deal with these things. That’s the child I’m sitting across from. …he’s just a broken human being.”

~ Parkland School Shooter Nikolas Cruz’s Attorney, Melisa McNeill

  • terrified into comfort with meager surroundings and possessions
  • expressing individuality only through imitation of peers
  • little desire to enter relationships or have children
  • extreme gender confusion
  • failure to grasp math, science and complex research
  • vulnerability to easily memorized script – religions/vague causes of social justice
  • fear of society and aversion to engaging in beneficial risk
  • lacking in ability to project, plan and anticipate
  • vulnerable to chronic autoimmune and brain impacts, CFS, Lupus, ME, MS, Fibromyalgia, etc.
  • bankrupt from extraordinarily high medical expenditures and low employability
  • vulnerable to the malevolent who masquerade inside our society for social & political gain
  • vulnerable to the criminal and violent (also a growing class)
  • vulnerable to drug addiction
  • vulnerable to monoculture and oligarchy
  • unskilled at middle class and upper middle class jobs or higher
  • lacking in physical skills needed for heavy labor/manufacturing
  • unable to contend for themselves in gray areas and legal proceedings
  • unable to hold their government accountable

All now displaced by ‘now needed’ and less-vaccinated, immigrants. Only a Tyflocracy can promote this type of population genocide and replacement with no conscience. No, no one came up to them and shot them in the back of the head, nor put them in gas chambers – opting instead to blend their latent Gulag Archipelago into the overall framework of society at large. I’ve had the measles, and I tell you I would have it 1,000 times over again myself, rather than have my child be vaccine injured or attain even a partial form of this outcome for our nation.

“Autism should be viewed as a threat to our national security. At the rate that it is increasing, it is a fundamental threat to our very existence as a Nation and a negative influence on our role in the world. So hiding from the truth and continuing to ignore a fast approaching disaster is a very unpatriotic disposition towards our country.”

~Abdulkadir Khalif, Contributing Editor at Age of Autism, quote from – Mary W Maxwell, PhD LLB – Consider the Lilies: A Review of Cures for Cancer and their Unlawful Suppression

Is all this proven? It is relegated to parents networking together and developing anecdote and group observations into a form of necessity driven competing science, with little help. So, in a word, no. Has the Ockham’s Razor precaution-action threshold been surpassed? Absolutely. Am I a qualified observer? Contextually no – but expertise and practice-wise, yes. I am the type of person missing from this argument equation. An intelligence specialist, a systems/signals/statistics science professional and a mystery solving fiend. Were I an enemy of the United States, I would be patient-to-drooling over this set of circumstances. No war is even necessary. The fight is beyond the ability of their anosognosiac skeptics and bureaucrats to detect. Their career-policing propaganda forbids them even looking into the matter. As a patient enemy of the US, I would simply enjoy such hilarious circumstances, be conservative on my own vaccine schedules, and wait things out.

And does the United States bear the largest incidence of autism/encephalopathy in the world? At 276 cases per 10,000 kids (1 in 36 kids, 1 in 27 boys and 1 in 80 girls), per the November 2017 CDC Autism Report, yes.24

‡ You will notice the CDC’s spin on the latest autism increase from 2014 to 2016 as being ‘not a statistically significant change’. This is incorrect, in that the latest increase from 1 in 55 kids to 1 in 36 kids continued the sustained ASD acceleration curve (see blue ASD line in the graph above) in autism diagnoses which has expressed since 1995, and was significant in its absolute growth as well. I am not sure how the study authors declared this to not constitute ‘a statistically significant change’? The only way this could be, is if 1) there was no sustained historical trend, and 2) the volatility of the measure variance had been historically large. Neither of which is the case inside this data.

In conclusion, the essence of what I am objecting to in this article is the abject reality that those who control and legislate our policy regarding vaccines and vaccine schedules, are not placing enough science, accountability and service in the public trust into their decision making processes. Yes, we are preventing disease, but at what cost? We do not actually know. I do not need a cadre of dilettante unemployed lab techs explaining that the science is settled on this issue. It is not. They are idiots. I need real plenary science to demonstrate to me that this risk is beyond a reasonable confidence of exclusion – and NOT the cherry sorted & arm’s-length statistical25 study propaganda foisted upon us all to date.

Real skepticism, real ethics, real science.  Not the counterfeit.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post =>
The Ethical Skeptic, “Vaccinials - The Betrayed Generation of Americans” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 14 Jan 2018, Web;

January 14, 2018 Posted by | Institutional Mandates | , , , | 4 Comments

Denial and Pseudo-Skepticism are Not the Same Thing

Pseudo-skepticism is the form of cynicism wherein a power holding group tampers with methods and science, media and social pressure mechanisms inside a domain of large unknown – in order to craft and enforce on the public, a null hypothesis or conclusion narrative, that might at best be accidentally correct. This is completely distinct from the process of denial. Suspension in denial may be existentially incorrect, but it at least stems in its originality from proper method and does not enforce a particular small-unknown domain conclusion narrative. The distinguishing difference is this: An ethical scientist might be a denialist at times, but an ethical scientist can never be a pseudo-skeptic.

I recently had a discussion on Twitter with a gentleman (and separately a brief dispute with a posing pseudo-intellectual who seemed more focused on me than this topic) about the distinguishing earmarks which separate stances of denial from the methods of pseudo-skepticism. The contention is often made inside social skepticism, that the denial of Anthropogenic Global Warming, constitutes ‘pseudo-skepticism’. This because those who oppose AGW claim to be using skepticism to support their uncertainty over that consensus conclusion. The purpose of this charade in tampering with otherwise well fitted definitions of pseudo-skepticism and denial, is to provide a misdirection with respect to understanding the actions of social skeptics on other issues (true pseudo-skepticism). Social Skeptics enjoy enormously the opportunity to misinform the public through the ridicule that can be generated over highly contentious and visible issues just such as climate change. Denialists may even borrow some of the errant methods taught by social skeptics in their desperation to keep an issue open. But just as vigilantes and police might appear to at times share methods, they are not the same thing at all. (Please note that I am an AGW advocate, I just maintain questions surrounding some of the consensus alternatives which were, or were not, researched in our process of deduction therein. Nor do I extrapolate the science into contentions that evil working Americans or Republicans are therefore worthy of violent opposition and disdain)

Denial is simply dogmatic allegiance to a refusal to accept a consensus based conclusion of science or groups claiming to represent science (dogmatic dissent). And while denial does involve avoiding selection of an alternative or promotion of the null hypothesis as a Verdrängung Mechanism, it really has nothing to do with one being ‘open minded’ – and may indeed be based cruxially upon a closed mindset. It does not mean that one is using skepticism incorrectly necessarily – rather that their dissent has ossified into a condition of dogmatic cynicism – and not that any particular feature of their skepticism is necessarily wrong. There is never a condition of skepticism wherein one just throws up their hands at any kind of questioning, basking in the bliss of the ‘right answer’ – as attractive a surrender as this might appear to the political agenda laden, weary or snowflake heart.

Skepticism itself does not mean that I must accept specific answers, it simply means that I defend the methods of science, even in the face of popular votes – and withhold disposition until a critical nexus is reached. A skeptic can simply be contending that this nexus has not yet been reached – and even disagree with inadequately supported claims to consensus. One can do this however, and still ossify into the cynical specter of denial.  In contrast, and as exhibited in the chart above (click to expand), pseudo-skepticism is the form of cynicism wherein a power wielding group tampers with methods and science, associations, media and social pressure mechanisms in order to create and enforce on the public, a false null hypothesis or conclusion narrative. This is completely distinct from the process of denial. Denial may be existentially wrong – yet still have stemmed from proper science methods originally. Pseudo-skepticism is agenda laden methodical doubt – used to identify the bad guys who don’t accept the right answer – and is only existentially correct in its conclusion by accident. Denial does not enforce any particular conclusion, only pseudo-skepticism does this.

A chief tactic of social skepticism is to blur the distinct integrity of words which might be useful in describing and communicating the methods of masquerade they employ.

A Contrast: Example of Pseudo-Skepticism

Of course, enormous uncertainty surrounds the fate of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan during the terminal leg of their journey around the world. On the team’s fateful July 2nd 1937 trip, their radio signal was picked up by a number of surrounding radio stations (Oahu, Midway, Howland and Wake islands). Despite Noonan having been trained in what is called Dead Reckoning and Radio Direction Finding navigation, they were unable to utilize the bearing of the radio direction signal from the on-station Coast Guard Cutter Itasca, in order to develop a track from their DR (navigation slang for a ‘Dead Reckoning track’ – an assumed-correct course based upon speed, bearing and time – an inductive extrapolation used frequently in navigation – I have over 7,000 practice hours in this method of navigation). A track which would lead them to a visual confirmation of Howland Island, their destination. Itasca had detected Earhart and Noonan right on the correct bearing for termination of the DR phase of their navigation plot. Yet, despite having the Itasca’s axial measurement on their RDF radio, Earhart and Noonan never showed up for the scheduled landing. A very odd occurrence given that four of five navigational variables (Howland axis, distance, speed, time) had been solved for, and only one uncertain variable remained – axial distance to Howland Island.

When you are a skeptic, who is misapplying skepticism and fail to realize that you don’t understand critical elements of dead reckoning navigation or how radio direction finding antennas work, you might assemble grand logical conjectures which are erroneous in attempting to provide a ‘simple’ explanation to this mystery (note: this is not an instance of Dunning-Kruger Error because neither celebrity skeptic communicator, Michael Shermer nor Brian Dunning are ‘peers’ to any dead reckoning navigators as a discipline group – this is simply an instance of failed skepticism, pseudo-skepticism – and great example at that). Moreover, if the club picks up your ‘rationality’ and hails it as a championing issue, then that error becomes dogmatic – ossifying, from methodical doubt in the handling of Ockham’s Razor sufficient alternatives, into the a priori bias of pseudo-skepticism. For example, in his June 22nd blog, Brian Dunning inexpertly applies apparent common sense to the issue – a grave mistake when used in lieu of actual investigative skepticism:

Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan had followed Itasca’s radio direction finding signal to get there. The water there is very deep, and it’s unlikely that much survives of the plane to ever be found. There’s never been any mystery surrounding her loss at sea.

For some reason, [TIGHAR’s] Gillespie thinks they flew instead to an island called Nikumaroro, a full ten degrees off the course they are known to have followed, and which their fuel onboard made it physically impossible to reach.1

The astute ethical skeptic will notice primarily that Dunning here is overconfident in his promotion of the single, popular, Occam’s (sic) Razor, conforming and simple Verdrängung Mechanism solution. The argument is over and no further research needs to be done as “There’s never been any mystery surrounding [their] loss at sea.” Well, as it turns out, this entire contention set is incorrect. It is pseudo-skepticism. It may make sense for the general public (the vulnerable of pseudo-skepticism) to consume the idea that a tenacious pilot and experienced navigator just flew mindlessly until they ran out of fuel, but it does not make sense to a seasoned investigator (skeptic).

Pseudo-skeptics package material for general consumption. Their goal is not truth; rather, influence.

First, Noonan followed Itasca’s radio direction AXIS, not bearing (as Dunning implies), and there is a difference which a skilled dead reckoning and RDF navigator knows, a skeptic might ascertain, but a pseudo-skeptic will never know (and more importantly, never get the feedback that their skeptical method was wrong). The ‘Loop’ or axial antenna is shown mounted on top of Earhart’s Lockheed Electra in the photo to the right.2 What this type of direction finding device gives is a two-bearing axis, not a single bearing direction.3 So the information Fred Noonan would have possessed was ‘Howland Island is either 350 degrees true from us, or 170 degrees true from us’ (see map above, upon termination of the dead reckoning phase of navigation). Their next step would be to fly one of the axis bearings to see if the signal faded or strengthened. The problem is that they were using very low HF (today’s frequency standards) frequencies, of which the signal propagation will dance around and chaotically strengthen and diminish no matter where you are. I once encountered a circumstance in my communications radio operator days where a 3MHz signal just like they used here, was totally clear from Diego Garcia, 1500 nautical miles away, yet I could not hear another transmitter on that same frequency band which was just 100 nautical miles from me.  This is the way radio frequency HF direction finding works. It bears enormous risk in its interpretation.

In addition, there was no ‘there’ to be gotten to in the first place. The navigation plot was ending its DR phase (an inductive conjecture) and transitioning to a radio directed phase (a deductive measure). This transition occurs at only a theoretical ‘there’. This is why a fix (the yellow circle with a dot inside it, on the chart above) is symbolized by a full circle, and carries more confidence than does a DR (in tomato) which is symbolized by a half circle. These symbols imply confidence on the datum.

Would not such symbology help in matters of science, to distinguish conclusions of induction and abduction pushed by pseudo-skeptics, as distinct from conclusions of deduction on a Query Oriented Normalization schema? But, we learn in pseudo-skepticism that the duty of skeptics is to defend questionable inductive answers (DR half circles) as science and never look again. The DR-science is finished. So…

Second, yes all the water was deep everywhere and no, it is not ‘unlikely’ – rather prohibitive, that any wreckage of the plane survives to this day, had they ditched in open ocean as he suggests.

Pseudo-skeptics rely upon how clever a phrase sounds, rather than its probative value. They will rarely catch a circumstance wherein we have stacked deductive methods on top of inductive conclusions. This is not a sound process – despite its looking ‘sciencey’ through its equipment and analytical tools. It is as dangerous socially for mankind every bit as much as it was navigationally for Noonan and Earhart.

Third, they did not follow a ‘known’ course as Dunning describes it, as Earhart and Noonan did not find the course confirming islands they had hoped for.4 A DR is not a ‘known’ course and speed, it is rather just as in the case of ‘there’ above, an assumption. If the prevailing winds were 10 knots south rather than the 1937 era forecast 3 knots north, then that would impart a 50 nautical mile error into the ‘known & there’. This is called a ‘tail condition’ in arrival distribution science – a less common scenario, but all too possible and real. The purpose of navigation is to use discipline methods to mitigate the risk of this assumption aspect of navigation and any tail condition circumstances.5

Pseduo-skeptics habitually fail to assess risk, tail variance and significance, as well as the impact of human behavior on social systems inside objective scenarios or their own construct analysis.

Fourth, Nikumaroro is EXACTLY ON, Noonan’s RDF search axis with Howland Island, a natural island to find once one has terminated their DR, and begun an uncertain axis search (again, something a pseudo-skeptic would never know).6

Pseudo-skeptics will tamper with terminology, using large footprint equivocal words, altering the meaning of probative terms in order to emasculate them, and switching critical words so as to reduce their expository value – like here, employing ‘bearing’ in lieu of ‘axis’. They are fully aware that 97% of the population, none of their cronies, nor scientists will catch the significance of the shell game.

Fifth, as you can see on the per hoc aditum scenario chart above, if Earhart and Noonan did not have the fuel to reach Nikumaroro, then they did not have the fuel to reach Howland Island, their destination either; unless the wind was just right (emphasis here). I seriously doubt that an experienced global pilot like Earhart would have taken off without enough fuel to cover for unexpected normal circumstance wind set and drift (such as 13 knots to the north or south).

This habit of crafting apparently solid debunkings, which rely upon clever sounding one-liners, in lieu of real understanding – this is a habit of pseudo-skepticism. Once you apply short cut one-liners in one discipline, you will do them in all (see Margold’s Law). The call here is to hold epoché, not craft appeal to authority solutions without real evidence.

Finally, their fuel would have run out EXACTLY about the time of spotting Nikumaroro island, based on the theoretical DR/RDF axis search, which is the standard practice of RDF/DR navigators. They had enough fuel to take the above track and even circle the island to see where they might land; as a reasonably conservative pilot will choose a deserted island beach over a chance of an open sea landing, any day, any time. If they are in trouble, they will land in a place where survival is enhanced and not chance a total loss in trying to find something better. Earhart did not have to be ‘ten degrees off course’ as Dunning inexpertly opines, because the “off course” variation he assumes is explained by the very RDF axis search Fred Noonan was trained to execute (in yellow in the image above).

A pseudo-skeptic will fail to see the non-linear dynamic outcomes of which a system is capable. Solutions are therefore easy, common sense founded upon induction – and become  prescriptive through Lindy Effect from that point onward – most fully unaware of the thin ice upon which their grand cosmologies stand.

Not to mention of course that the final radio direction finding fix of the aggregate of all the RDB reports from the surrounding islands (see on the chart above, the grey bearings reported by Itasca, Oahu, Midway, Howland and Wake islands – collectively support an aggregate fix at the position of the yellow circle fix), much more solidly than does ‘simplest explanation’ skepticism, places Earhart and Noonan about 50 nautical miles north of a nearest proximity island, right on the Howland search axis …Nikumaroro.

What distinguishes fake skepticism, just like fake news, from the real thing – is not the facts you bring to bear; but rather the facts you choose to leave out.

Note as well, that if I use only the radio direction bearings of the two closest radio stations (Itasca and Midway), then I get a two-shot fix right on top of Nikumaroro island. This should have been one of the first places to examine. Never underestimate the impact of the human desire to survive and skilled pilot ingenuity on ‘simplest answer’ alternative hierarchies.

The problem with social skepticism is not that individuals abuse skepticism to prematurely arrive at a personal wrong conclusion. The problem does not reside in simply being wrong. With social skepticism the entire scientific and public community at large, intimidated by simple linear approved thought, arrive at and permanently affix these errant conclusions. We take Dead Reckoning style induction or abduction – and falsely regard it as proved science. Then we stack such conclusions upon each other into grand assemblies of Dead Reckoning tracks – ignorant of the error we have imparted and multiplied (see Contrasting Deontological Intelligence with Cultivated Ignorance).

It does not matter that these individuals are rational and can eventually at a later time, be brought to understand what really happened inside such mysteries. What matters is that they over-confidently estimate their ability to spot and define ‘likelihood’ – and failing to evaluate that risk, compound it by releasing such conclusions as ‘rational’, ‘factual’ and science-based – simply because they think they used skepticism.

Update 7 March 2018:  Scientists 99% sure that remains found on Nikumaroro Island are those of Amelia Earhart 

They would have circled and landed, only minutes after these transmission bearing measurements, as a precautionary measure. Observe the graphic I assembled above which reflects these final RDF bearings, and note where their weighted three-shot fix resides.7 A very compelling theory – and this is how science actually works. Why did Brian Dunning not do this same research? Because he was applying pseudo-skepticism (see Steven Novella’s definition). He selected for one imperious and what he thought to be, likely correct answer, to be enforced by bad method – upon us all. My citing that his biased selection of one answer, constitutes wrong method, does not serve to make me therefore a ‘denier’ – even if 97% of his cohorts support the single answer. [Note: Brian Dunning appears to be a pretty cool and smart dude, so nothing in this example is intended to amount to any personal disparagement in any way. That includes Michael Shermer as well. I actually really do like these guys.]

Pseudo-skeptics employ derision or humor, not just to motivate deniers to accede to scientific gravitas, they mostly employ humor to block critical alternatives and prohibit deductive science, because of its distinct probative & epistemic value. They do not care what is truth – they care what you believe is truth. Often the developers of pseudo-skeptic propaganda (like the above fake science tweet from a paid hashtag stuffer – someone employed to squelch disdained ideas) are hired and compensated to play such a role. Deniers typically, not always, but typically rely upon conscience.

Knee-jerk dismissing this compelling theory as a viable and testable alternative, in favor of ceasing science and adopting a simple or socially preferred/conforming explanation, ‘they crashed into the sea’ – this is pseudo-skepticism. You will see it play over and over inside society – it is not the same as denialism.

Denialism is probably being wrong; pseudo-skepticism is being not even wrong.

Dismissal of a very compelling alternative theory – one which is supported to a great degree by the intelligence, one which is rational, one which is highly plausible by expert method, one which bears mechanism and can be tested (not that an ethical skeptic assumes it as a priori correct); dismissing this in advance of sufficient knowledge horizon development or testing is …pseudo-skepticism. It is pseudo-science. More specifically, what have Shermer and Dunning done here? In specific regard to pseudo-skepticism their contentions feature a degree of Methodical Pathology combined with a knee-jerk compulsion to enforce conformity. That is, they have ossified from dissent to cynicism. Specifically many pseudo-skeptics practice the following:

Hints that one might be a pseudo-skeptic (wrong methods and only accidentally correct)

  • A pseudo-skeptic rarely understands an opposing alternative, they socially – just don’t care about soundness or logical calculus
  • Has bought into one single answer
  • Promotes conjecture and conformance inside a subject with a large horizon of unknown
  • Chooses a ceremonial issue
  • Focuses on issues which bear no productive achievement potential with respect to love, an increase in usable knowledge, or the alleviation of suffering
  • Uses non-expert skeptics, as communicators – instead of investigative reporters
  • Decides the likelihood of ideas before the preponderance of compelling theory has been researched
  • Targets groups or legitimate researchers bearing ideas they do not like, as the bad guys (TIGHAR in this case) – polarizing and corrupting the issue a priori
  • Employs hearsay, common and ‘friendly sounding’ information as the principal elements to communicate
  • Enforces a popular standing belief as the ‘simplest explanation’
  • Chooses an issue which will incite their faithful with interest
  • Selects a position which can be perceived as being the ‘rational’ approach
  • Selects a position or issue which will tender them attention
  • Chooses a topic which contains enough unknown such that bias is hard to discern or be held to account for
  • Selects an issue where Nickell Plating (doing sciencey-looking things to appear skepticky) is practicable
  • Chooses an issue where to conform to the standing explanation can be used to show why those who oppose you are ‘irrational’
  • Stands in a position to block the investigation of compelling alternatives or intelligence
  • Assigns a null hypothesis which has been assigned without merit (See The Five Types of Null Hypothesis Error)
  • Never held epoché to begin with
  • Accepts entire bundles of scientific ideas based upon what political side they appear to reinforce
  • Employs false methods of science (often with real true facts) in order to petition for cessation of further investigative activity
  • A pseudo-skeptic considers violence or legal action as a possibility at hand in the enforcement of their conclusions
  • Can never be an ethical scientist
  • Employs false science method – pseudoscience

A Contrast: Example of Denial

AGW opponents, contrary to the shtick of social skeptics who promote anthropogenic global warming social agendas, might actually use skepticism.  They might be wrong, they might reside in a state of dogged denial – but those existential circumstances do not serve to relegate their skepticism to status as pseudo-skepticism, simply because they disagree. A denialist just simply might not be willing to accept the consensus alternative. An ethical scientist might be a denialist, but an ethical scientist can never be a psuedo-skeptic. More specifically for this example, a denialist ‘denies’ that the null below has been correctly assigned; and denies further that all of the alternatives below have been falsified through ample research and processes of deductive consilience:

Null – Carbon dioxide (and methane in ‘carbon equivalents’) in the atmosphere, introduced by human activity and increasing from from 280 parts per million in the 19th century to more than 400 today, much more than any other greenhouse or warming factor, is the primary contributor to climate change since 18508

Alternatives –

1.  Cyclical changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), on increase since 1850, is the major contributor

2.  A cyclical shift in Solar Spectral Index (SSI), towards more release of water-vapor-absorptive infrared irradiance by the sun, has occurred since 1850 and is the major contributor

3.  Primary Earth orbital dynamics (obliquity, eccentricity and axis precession), as recorded in the Milankovitch Cycles, are at least partial and not fully understood contributors

4.  Cyclical changes to the Earth’s core nuclear reactor and structural/mantle dynamics (as measurable by geoneutrinos and as observed historically in the Schumann Resonance/Earth temperature record) have served to heat the oceans from the bottom up in the Pacific Rim of Fire and equatorial thermal regions (El Niño and La Niña), and consequently the pole ice from the bottom up, and atmosphere since 18509 10 11 12 13

5.  Deforestation and/or loss of reflectiveness/ocean/ice absorption has been the primary contributor to climate change since 1850

6.  Natural processes of water vapor, carbon and methane atmospheric release, in combination with and as precipitated resulting from the Null, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5 or any combination thereof, explain the majority of temp increases since 1850

7.  Carbon, methane and water vapor are all released as a natural sympathetic outcome of climate change, and are not primarily contributed by man – nor the principal cause, rather only a correlation with some other causal condition

Note of Clarity – A denialist denies that the Null has been chosen by valid rational or empirical processes nor that it should be rationally selected for consensus. A pseudo-skeptic denies that the alternatives are even science, or insists that they should never have been seriously investigated to begin with, or merit zero investigation now.

For me personally, I hold the Precautionary Principle as one contributor to the reason I favor taking action based upon the Null Hypothesis in the matter of climate change – and complimentarily because I have read all the material I could find on alternatives 1 – 7, and found nothing compelling enough to be considered as a falsification of the Null. Alternative 4 is interesting, but only interesting so far. I wish we had more study on it. In so far as our temperature models are now outrunning our carbon curves (see graphic I assembled at right which includes the 2017 Mauna Loa data), then we need to keep a skeptical eye on our own conclusions, in order to avoid falling into pseudo-skepticism. Denial in contrast involves ignoring climate change warnings: greenhouse gasses, and carbon dioxide in particular, are not simply a ‘correlation’ with global temperature increases, rather a fingerprint signal. A distinction point which not only denialists, but fake skeptics as well tend to misunderstand (as in the case of autism contributors for example).

I maintain skepticism around the issue and bear some concern that we have not fully investigated the contribution from all alternatives 1 – 7. But like most scientists, hold the need for precaution and the current inductive data – as bearing more concerning gravitas. Should I encounter data which develops a compelling case for Alternative 4 and 6 for instance – that does not immediately serve to make me a denialist.  If however I am protecting the null hypothesis and begin to wage a campaign to have science ignore Alternative 4, then I am indeed a pseudo-skeptic. Do you see the game they are playing with our language in order to obscure this clarification on behalf of the general public (see Wittgenstein Error and Its Faithful Participants)?

These are the kind of games for which an ethical skeptic must be ever vigilant.

Take a hint folks, fake skeptics do not hold the reasoned position I just outlined above. They are correct – but only by accident. Moreover, they employ such correctness to enact goals which have nothing really to do with the science – rather someone they hate. I respect a researching denier much more, for this simple reason. But Let’s be clear here too folks – each of these alternatives listed above are actual scientific alternatives and their investigation is done with actual science methods. In contrast, pseudo-skepticism relies upon false methods. This makes it not science. The rightness or wrongness of the conclusion has nothing to do with it. A denialist, in contrast may practice the following:

Hints that one might be a denialist (right original methods yet may be doggedly incorrect)

  • A denialist understands the alternative they are denying, as well or better than do its proponents – they disagree on its soundness
  • Has not bought into one single answer
  • Withholds conjecture and consent inside an issue of a small horizon unknown
  • Does not choose an issue, but may have it thrust upon them
  • Focuses on issues of productive achievement potential with respect to love, an increase in usable knowledge, or the alleviation of suffering
  • Uses experts who focus on the salient evidence, eschewing ‘communicators’
  • Resists a priori definitions of likelihood
  • Doesn’t target anyone – just simply disagree with either soundness or logical calculus
  • Sometimes employs hearsay, common and ‘friendly sounding’ information as the principal elements of support only
  • Does not choose a ‘simplest explanation’ – cognizant that things may be more complex than we understand
  • Does not have a faithful following
  • Does not conflate rationality with conformance
  • Does not seek attention
  • Cites and alerts the community to bias – not a specific conclusion
  • Never pretends to be or represent science, just simply skepticism
  • Does not argue ‘rationality’ and ‘irrationality’ – rather corruption and conclusiveness
  • Does not block research of any alternatives – even the one they question
  • Dissents as to the null hypothesis assigned, but may refuse to assign one as well
  • Has held epoché past its utility
  • May resist a whole set of scientific ideas they perceive to be politically motivated
  • Employs real methods of science (sometimes with errant data or assumptions) to encourage more scientific research
  • A denialist rarely or ever considers violence or legal action as an at-hand solution to their debate
  • Might be simply a mistaken ethical scientist
  • Employs science – just errs in conclusion, soundness or logical calculus

Behind the Conflation of the Two Terms

Pseudo-skepticism is an entirely distinct malicious and errant method and is not a set of errant conclusions, per se. False skeptics do not get this. They believe the notion that

The ends justifies the means, the answer justifies the methodology of arriving at the answer.

Vigilantes and Police Forces both take people into custody at gunpoint, and sometimes kill people. They both have headquarter offices, but this does not make them the same thing at all. In similar fashion, just because a denialist might use some of the tactics of social skeptics and pseudo-skeptics at times (after all this is what celebrity skeptics have been teaching the public since 1972), does not serve as a basis to identify them as pseudo-skeptics. Social skeptics will employ the use of traits common to both terminology domains, those traits in the undistributed middle, to provide a basis for conflating and confusing the terms ‘denial’ and ‘pseudo-skepticism’.  They do so, for reasoned purpose: to blur the distinct integrity of words which might be useful in describing and communicating the methods of masquerade they employ.

Characterization by the Undistributed Middle

/philosophy : formal fallacy : fallacy of composition/ : a rhetorical blending of fallacy of composition and affirmation of the consequent, wherein traits shared between two distinct groups are used to underpin the claim that the two groups are indeed identical or falsely that a person in one group actually belongs in the other group. Usually a form of rhetosophy, used to support an agenda, in its conflation. All pseudo scientists promote un-vetted data, the proponent of this argument promoted un-vetted data, therefore the promoter of this argument is a pseudo scientist.

Being right all the time, is not the goal of an ethical skeptic. Investment in such ego and fear assets – introduces bias into the deliberative processes we undertake. I would rather be a mistaken denialist, who pressed their epoché just a little bit more than they should – than a mindless, bad methods, unethical pseudo-skeptic any day.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 14

July 9, 2017 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies, Ethical Skepticism, Institutional Mandates | , , , , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: